PFAS Litigation Updates

FILTER BY STATE

CA, DC, DE, FL, GA, MD, MI, MN, NC, NJ, NM, NV, NY, NC, OH, SC, TX, VT, WA, WI

The world of PFAS litigation is quickly evolving. As regulatory scrutiny of these compounds increases, so, too, will the body of associated case law. From class actions to multidistrict litigation, this section will regularly highlight developments in PFAS-related litigation.

Content in this section does not reflect the opinion of Alston & Bird or its attorneys.

Please note, a subscription may be required to view some of this content.

 

Read the PFAS Primer Quarterly Update

Subscribe
Previous Issues

Wisconsin State Court Approves Settlement in Fire Suppression Suit

A Wisconsin state court judge approved a $10 million settlement between the state and a leading manufacturer of fire suppression products, resolving claims that PFAS from one of the company’s facilities allegedly contaminated drinking water and the local environment. The company agreed to provide clean water in deep drinking-water wells for every existing plot of land within a designated area surrounding its facility where private drinking-water wells are monitored and managed for PFAS contamination. The company will also continue to offer deep replacement wells to the subject properties for 20 years, maintain the deep wells for 20 years after installation, maintain treatment systems for 10 years, and offer bottled water for two years. The settlement further provides that the company will submit reports to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on PFAS remediation in soil, groundwater, and surface water.

June 5, 2026 | State of Wisconsin v. Tyco Fire Products Limited Partnership, No. 22-CX-0001 (Wis. Cir. Ct.).

Fourth Circuit Reverses PFAS Injunction

The Fourth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction barring Chemours from discharging more HFPO-DA, one type of PFAS, from its Washington Works facility into the Ohio River than its Clean Water Act (CWA) permit allows. The Fourth Circuit first held that the plaintiff, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, had shown a substantial likelihood of Article III associational standing through member Charlise Robinson, who avoided boating in the river because of Chemours’s alleged permit violations. According to the Fourth Circuit, that decision to avoid boating was an injury in fact, traceable to the discharges, and redressable by an injunction. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court’s irreparable-harm analysis was flawed. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that the district court’s analysis improperly weighed alleged public harm, presumed harm from a CWA violation, and relied on expert testimony showing only increased risk rather than harm that was more likely than not. Because Robinson did not drink or cook with her tap water, the finding of harm was clearly erroneous, and the injunction was vacated.

June 3, 2026 | West Virginia Rivers Coalition Inc. v. Chemours Co. FC LLC, No. 25-1924 (4th Cir.).

Australia Sues to Recover Billions in PFAS Cleanup Costs at Defense Bases

The Australian government announced that it commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against 3M Company and 3M Australia Pty Ltd. to recover costs for alleged PFAS contamination at 28 defense bases across Australia, where PFAS were allegedly present in legacy firefighting foams used for many years. The government alleges that 3M withheld information and misrepresented the effects of its AFFF, did not fully disclose what it knew about the environmental risks of AFFF, and gave assurances about disposal and environmental safety that were inconsistent with its knowledge at the time. The Australian government is seeking more than AUS$2 billion in damages to recover past and future expenses incurred in investigating and managing contamination from the historical storage and use of AFFF.

May 28, 2026 | Commonwealth of Australia v. 3M Co. (Fed. Ct. Austl.).

Montana Federal Court Declines to Sanction Forum-Shopping Plaintiffs

The District of Montana denied motions for fees, costs, sanctions, and a stay under Rule 41(d) that were brought by 3M, DuPont, and other defendants in a nationwide class action alleging that PFAS-containing firefighter gear caused certain health effects. The Connecticut purchaser plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed their first-filed Connecticut action and then refiled in Montana, where related municipal claims had progressed more quickly. The defendants argued that this reflected improper forum- and judge-shopping, especially given the plaintiffs’ earlier opposition to transfer to the AFFF MDL based on their position that Connecticut was the proper venue. The District of Montana disagreed, finding that although the plaintiffs took somewhat inconsistent positions, changed circumstances—including the Montana action’s faster pace and the addition of new plaintiff cities—justified consolidation there. Because there had been no adverse substantive rulings against the plaintiffs in Connecticut, the court found no bad faith and denied the motions.

May 28, 2026 | City & County of Butte-Silver Bow v. 3M Co., No. 2:25-cv-00036 (D. Mont.).

Michigan Landfills Survive Motion to Dismiss in CERCLA PFAS Case

Two Michigan landfills, Central Sanitary Landfill and Ottowa County Landfill, survived motions to dismiss their Superfund cost recovery claims against PFAS manufacturers and users. In denying the motions to dismiss, the court rejected the defendant’s “useful product” defense—that it sold a legitimate, valuable product that only later became a hazardous waste. The court also rejected an argument that at least one of the plaintiffs did not actually allege a release of PFAS-contaminated leachate and that any releases that did occur were covered as federally permitted under the Clean Water Act.

May 7, 2026 | Central Sanitary Landfill Inc. v. Wolverine World Wide Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01639 (W.D. Mich.).